ED 356 570 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION · that divides the literature into five areas. Section 1, "General References on School Restructuring," contains 89 references on proposals for

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 356 570 EA 024 844

AUTHOR Prager, KarenTITLE Bibliography on School Restructuring, 1993.INSTITUTION Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools,

Madison, WI.SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),

Washington, DC.PUB DATE 93CONTRACT R117Q00005-92NOTE 41p.; For the 1992 Bibliography, see ED 342 121.AVAILABLE FROM Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools,

University of Wisconsin, 1025 W. Johnson Street,Madison, WI 53706.

PUB TYPE Reference Materials Bibliographies (131)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Accountability; *Curriculum Development;

*Educational Change; Elementary Secondary Education;Evaluation Criteria; Faculty Development;*Institutional Characteristics; Parent Participation;*School Community Relationship; School Location;*School Restructuring; Social Services; TeacherMorale

ABSTRACTThere exists much research and theoretical literature

on school restructuring that is of interest to policymakers,practitioners, and educational researchers. In this publication, abibliography of journal articles, manuscripts, and books is providedthat divides the literature into five areas. Section 1, "GeneralReferences on School Restructuring," contains 89 references onproposals for school reform (32), how schools work (24), and on thechange process (33). Section 2, "Student Experience," contains 103references on curricular and instructional reform (40), methods ofgrouping students (24), student engagement (11), and alternativeassessment (28). Section' 3, "Professional Life of Teachers," contains35 references on analysis of teachers' work life (20), and proposalsfor enhancing the teaching profession (15). Section 4, "SchoolGovernance," contains 57 references on policy issues and newstructures for accountability (15), school-site management (13),leadership (10), and school climate and culture (19). Section 5,"Collaboration Between Schools and Community," contains 20 referenceson policy issues (10), coordination of social services for children(7), business and school partnerships (4), and parent involvement(9). Contains an author index. (TEJ)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

CENTER ON ORGANIZATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOLS

thhB ography

c: Schoolon

Nchool Restructuring

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONosn.t per. at.ona a^I ,Tp,ver^r^1.uCA 730NAL RESOURCES 'NF(IRMATIClN

".ENTER ERIC.TES inr,,nen! as pee., ororlaC ea as,0 r :WS," -Irpanl/a.

Q.nat nk,

^aves "af neon aae::,1,.'! IL,a1,

-^.S ^.. (.0 00.^..."ASIale0-r SICK.."^P", epeSeI IC a

E P. nes

Wisconsin Culter for Education ResearchSchool of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison

BES it7

Center Mission

The Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools studies how organizational featuresof schools can be changed to increase the intellectual and social competence of students. The five-year program of research focuses on restructuring in four areas: the experiences of students inschool; the professional life of teachers; the governance, management and leadership of schools; andthe coordination of community resources to better serve educationally disadvantaged students.

Through syntheses of previous research, analyses of existing data, and new empirical studiesof education reform, the Center focuses on six critical issues for elementary, middle and high schools:How can schooling nurture authentic forms of student achievement? How can schooling enhanceeducational equity? How can decentralization and local empowerment be constructively developed?How can schools be transformed into communities of learning? How can change be approachedthrough thoughtful dialogue and support rather than coercion and regulation? How can the focus onstudent outcomes be shaped to serve these five principles?

Center Publications

In the fall and spring of each year, the Center publishes an issue report which offers in -depth analysisof critical issues in school restructuring; Issues in Restructuring Schools is distributed free to all

persons on the mailing list. In addition, three "briefs" targeted to special audiences are offeredyearly. Our 1993 bibliography, currently available, is distributed free on request; it will be updatedagain in 1994 and 1995. Occasional papers reporting results of Center research will be available atcost. To be placed on the mailing list, please contact Karen Prager, Dissemination Coordinator,Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin, 1025 W. JohnsonStreet, Madison, WI 53706. Telephone: (608) 263-7575.

Girt1rBEST CITI

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING1993

This bibliography provides a recommended list of research and theoretical literature in schoolrestructuring. The literature, chosen to be of interest for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers,is organized into five areas: I. General References, II. Student Experiences, III. Professional Life ofTeachers, IV. School Governance, and V. Collaboration Between Schools and Community. Thesetopics reflect specific research projects conducted at the Center on Organization and Restructuring ofSchools.

This publication was prepared by Karen Prager at the Center on Organization and Restructuring ofSchools (Grant No. R117Q00005 -92), supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement, and by the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Schoolof Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions ofmany colleagues and educators in Centers, Labs, and Schools of Education across the nation. Inaddition, we value the expert assistance of Lorene Folgert, Jean Norman, Diane Randall, and thereference staff at the Instructional Materials Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

CENTER ON ORGANIZATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOLS

University of Wisconsin-MadisonWisconsin Center for Education Research

1025 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706(608) 263-7575

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. GENERAL REFERENCES ON SCHOOL RESTRUCTURINGA. Proposals for School Reform

1

B. How Schools Work3

C. The Change Process 5

II. STUDENT EXPERIENCESA. Curricular and Instructional Reform 8

B. Methods of Grouping Students11

C. Student Engagement12

D. Alternative Assessment13

III. PROFESSIONAL LIFE OF TEACHERSA. Analysis of Teachers' Work Life 16

B. Proposals for Enhancing the Teaching Profession 17

IV. SCHOOL GOVERNANCEA. Policy Issues and New Structures for Accountability 19

B. School Site Management

C. Leadership

D. School Climate and Culture

V. COLLABORATION BETWEEN SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITYA. Policy Issues 24

B. Coordination of Social Services for Children

C. Business and School Partnerships

D. Parent Involvement

Author Index

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING

I. GENERAL REFERENCES ON SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING

A. PROPOSALS FOR SCHOOL REFORM

Blythe, T., & Gardner, H. (1990). A school for all intelligences. Educational Leadership, 47(7),33-36.

Bonstingl, J. J. (1992). Schools of quality: An introduction to total quality management ineducation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brandt, R. (Ed.). (1990). Restructuring: What is it? Educational Leadership, 47(7). [Entireissue].

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turningpoints: Preparing American youthfor the 21st century. Report of the Carnegie Task Force on the Education of YoungAdolescents. New York: Author.

Corner, J. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 259(5), 42-48.

Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, & America's schools. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1989). Success for all in a new century. Washington, DC:Author.

Elmore, R. F., & Associates. (1990). Restructuring schools: The next generation of educationalreform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Finn, C. E., Jr. (1991). We must take charge: Our schools and our future. New York: FreePress.

Fuhrman, S. H. (Ed.). (1993). Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America's schools: A guide for school-based action. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hopfenberg, W. S., Levin, H. M., Meister, G., & Rogers, J. (1990). Toward accelerated middleschools for at-risk youth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Accelerated School Project.

1

Kearns, D. T., & Doyle, D. P. (1989). Winning the brain race: A bold plan to make our schoolscompetitive. San Francisco: Institute for Competitive Studies.

Keefe, J. W., Jenkins, J. M., & Hersey, P. W. (Eds.). (1992). A leader's guide to schoolrestructuring. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Levine, M. (Ed.). (1992). Professional practice schools: Linking teacher education and school

reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lewis, A. (1989). Restructuring America's schools. Arlington, VA: American Association ofSchool Administrators.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Restructuring schools: What matters and what works. PhiDelta Kappan, 71(10), 759-764.

Marshall, H. H. (Ed.). (1992). Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York:

Teachers College Press.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

National Governors' Association. (1989). From rhetoric to action: State progress in restructuringthe education system. Washington, DC: Author.

Newmann, F. M. (1988). Can depth replace coverage in the high school curriculum? Phi DeltaKappan, 69(5), 345-348.

Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1990). Making the best of schools: A handbook for parents, teachers, andpolicymakers. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

O'Neil, J. (1990). Piecing together the restructuring puzzle. Educational Leadership, 47(7), 4-10.

Quality Education for Minorities Project. (1990). Education that works: An action plan for theeducation of minorities. Cambridge, MA: Author, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.

Schlechty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the 21st century: Leadership imperatives for educationalreform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Seeley, D. S. (1985). Education through partnership. Washington, DC: American EnterpriseInstitute for Public Policy Research.

2

Shanker, A. (1990). The end of the traditional model of schooling--and a proposal for usingincentives to restructure our public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(5), 344-357.

Shanker, A., & Rosenberg, B. (1991, Winter). Politics, markets and America's schools: Thefallacies of private school choice. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.

Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's School: Redesigning the American high school. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.

Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How "untracking" can save America's schools. NewYork: The New Press.

B. HOW SCHOOLS WORK

Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bidwell, C. E. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook oforganizations (pp. 972-1023). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Bliss, J. R., Firestone, W. A., & Richards, C. E. (1991). Rethinking effective schools: Researchand practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brandt, R. (Ed.). (1991). Restructuring schools: What's really.happening? EducationalLeadership, 48(8). [Entire issue].

Bryk, A. S., & Thum, Y. M. (1989). The effects of high school organization on dropping out: Anexploratory investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 353-89.

Clune, W. H., & Witte, J. F. (Eds.). (1990). Choice and control in American education: Vol. I.The theory of choice and control in American education. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Clune, W. H., & Witte, J. F. (Eds.). (1990). Choice and control in American education: Vol. 2.The practice of choice, decentralization and school restrucruring. Philadelphia: FalmerPress.

Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities.New York: Basic Books.

Corcoran, T. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1986). The search for successful secondary schools: The firstthree years of the secondary school recognition program. Philadelphia: Research for BetterSchools.

Cusick, P. A. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the American high school: Studies of three schools.New York: Longman.

3

0

Freedman, S. G. (1990). Small victories: The real world of a teacher, her students and their highschool. New York: Harper & Row.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown.

Maclver, D. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1992). Middle grades education: Middle schools and junior highschools. Encyclopedia of Educational Research (6th ed.) (pp. 834-844). New York:Macmillan.

McNeil, L. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York:Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondaryschools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Metz, M. H. (1986). Different by design: The context and character of three magnet schools. NewYork: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1983). The structure of educational organizations. In J. W. Meyer, &W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 71-97).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Pallas, A. M. (1988). School climate in American high schools. Teachers College Record, 89(4),541-54.

Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners andlosers in the educational marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ratzki, A., & Fisher, A. (1989/90). Life in a restructured school. Educational Leadership, 47(4),46-51.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondaryschools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace's Compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing andwhat we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.

4

C. THE CHANGE PROCESS

Bacharach, S. B. (Ed.). (1990). Education Reform: Malting sense of it all. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can makethe difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting education change, Vol.111: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

Conley, D. (1991). Restructuring schools: Educators adapt to a changing world. Eugene, OR:University of Oregon, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

Crandall, D. P., Eiseman, J. W., & Louis, K. S. (1986). Strategic planning issues that bear on thesuccess of school improvement efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 21-53.

Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.

David, J. L., Cohen, M., Honetschalager, D., & Traiman, S. (1990). State actions to restructureschools: First steps. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.

David, J. L., Purkey, S., & White, P. A. (1989). Restructuring in progress: Lessons frompioneering districts. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association and University ofWisconsin-Madison, Center for Policy Research in Education.

Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform ofAmerican education. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

Firestone, W. A., Rosenblum, S., Bader, B. D., & Massell, D. (1991). Education reform from1983-1990: State action and district response. Rutgers, NJ: Consortium for Policy Researchin Education.

Fiske, E. B. (1991). Smart schools, smart kids: Why do some schools work? New York: Simon &Schuster.

Ford Foundation. (1972). A Foundation goes to school. New York: Author.

Fuhrman, S. H., & Malen, B. (Eds.). (1991). The politics of curriculum and testing. Philadelphia:Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. G. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: TeachersCollege Press.

5

r

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Pushing school reform to a new edge: The seven ironies of schoolempowerment. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(1), 68-75.

Hall, G., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York.

Hess, G. A., Jr. (1991). School restructuring, Chicago style. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works.New York: Plenum Press.

Kyle, R. M. J., & White, E. H. (Eds.). (1985). Reaching for excellence: An effective schoolssourcebook. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1986). Rethinking school improvement: Research, craft, and concept. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why.New York: Teachers College Press.

Murphy, J. (1992). Restructuring America's schools: An overview. In C. E. Finn, Jr., & T.Rebarber (Eds.), Education reform in the 90s (pp. 3-20). New York: Macmillan.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (Eds.). (1993). Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoingefforts. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

National Governors' Association. (1989). From rhetoric to action: State progress in restructuringthe education system. Washington, DC: Author.

Newmann, F. M. (1993). Beyond common sense in educational restructuring: The issues of contentand linkage. Educational Researcher, (22)2, 4-13, 22.

Popkewitz, T. S., Tabachnick, B. R., & Wehlage, G. (1982). The myth of educational reform: Astudy of school responses to a program of change. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change (2nd ed.). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course beforeit's too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.).The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Timar, T. B., & Kirp, D. L. (1988). Managing educational excellence. Philadelphia: FalmerPress.

6

Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wise, A. E. (1979). Legislated learning: The bureaucratization of the American classroom.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

7

II. STUDENT EXPERIENCE

A. CURRICULAR AND INSTRUCTIONAL REFORM

Adler, M. J., & The Paideia Group. (1984). The Paideia program: An educational syllabus. NewYork: Macmillan.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: AProject 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington,DC: Author.

Applebee, A. N. (1989). The teaching of literature in programs with reputations for excellence inEnglish (Tech. Rep. No. 1.1). Albany, NY: National Research Center on LiteratureTeaching and Learning.

Applebee, A. N. (1991). Literature instruction in American schools. Albany, NY: NationalResearch Center on Literature Teaching and Learning.

Bybee, R. W., Buchwald, C. E., Crissman, S., Heil, D. R., Kuerbis, P. J., Matsumoto, C., &McInerney, J. D. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years:Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Washington, DC: The National Center forImproving Science Education [A Partnership between The NETWORK, Inc., Andover, MAand The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs, CO].

Bybee, R. W., Buchwald, C. E., Crissman, S., Heil, D. R., Kuerbis, P. J., Matsumoto, C., &McInerney, J. D. (1990). Science and technology education for the middle years:Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Washington, DC: The National Center forImproving Science Education [A Partnership between The NETWORK, Inc., Andover, MAand The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs, CO].

California Department of Education. (1987). English-language arts framework for California publicschools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education. (1988). History-social science framework for California publicschools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education. (1990). Science framework for California public schools:Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education. (1992). It's elementary! Elementary grades task force report.Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education. (1992). Mathematics framework for California public schools:Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education. (1992). Second to none: The report of the California highschool task force. Sacramento, CA: Author.

8

California State Department of Education. (1987). Caught in the middle: Educational reform foryoung adolescents in California public schools. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California State Department of Education. (1987). Mathematics model curriculum guide:Kindergarten through grade eight. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California State Department of Education. (1989). Foreign language framework for California publicschools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California State Department of Education. (1989). Visual and performing arts framework forCalifornia public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Curriculum Task Force of the National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools. (1989).Charting a course: Social studies for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach.New York: Basic Books.

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competitionand individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ladwig, J. G., & King, M. B. (1992, Winter). Restructuring secondary social studies: Theassociation of organizational features and classroom thoughtfulness. American EducationalResearch Journal, 29(4), 695-714.

Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching andlearning (Research Report No. 22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Marshall, H. H. (Ed.). (1992). Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C., &Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mathematical Sciences Education Board. (1990). Reshaping school mathematics: A philosophy andframework for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Murnane, R. J., & Raizen, S. A. (Eds.). (1988). Improving indicators of the quality of science andmathematics education in grades K-12. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

9

National Center for Improving Science Education. (1991). The high stakes of high school science.Washington, DC: Author [A Partnership between The NETWORK, Inc., Andover, MA andThe Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs, CO].

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards forschool mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National aiuncil of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professiond standards for teachingmathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Newmann, F. M. (1991). Linking restructuring to authentic student achievement. Phi DeltaKappan, 72(6), 458-463.

Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements.American Journal of Education, 96(2), 215-231.

Norris, S. P. (Ed.). (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on aneducational ideal. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Student engagement: When recitation becomesconversation. In H. Waxman & H. Walberg (Eds.), Contemporary research on teaching (pp.257-276). Berkeley: McCutchan.

Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities,outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum: Aproject of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 570-608). New York:Macmillan.

Quigley, C. N., & Bahmueller, C. F. (Eds.). (1991). Civitas: A framework for civic education.Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.

Sharan, S., Kussell, P., Hertz-Lazarowtiz, R., Bejarano, Y., Raviv, S., & Sharan, Y. (1984).Cooperative learning in the classroom: Research in desegregated schools. Hillside, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.

Smith, M. S., O'Day, J., & Cohen, D. K (1990). National curriculum American style: Can it bedone? What might it look like? American Educator, 14(4), pp. 10-17, 40-47.

10

Iv

B. METHODS OF GROUPING STUDENTS(includes ability grouping, tracking, nongraded programs, task grouping)

Brandt, R. (Ed.). (1992). Untracking for equity. Educational Leadership, 50(2). [Entire issue].

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.

DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoreticfoundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58(2), 119-149.

Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology ofEducation, 60(3), 135-155.

Gamoran, A. (1992). Is ability grouping equitable? Educational Leadership, 50(2), 11-17.

Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesisof survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 415-435.

Kerckhoff, A. C. (1986). Effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools. AmericanSociological Review, 51(6), 842-858.

Kilgore, S. B. (1991). The organizational context of tracking in schools. American SociologicalReview, 56, 189-203.

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporaryperspectives. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1988). Curriculum tracking as mediating the sccial distribution of highschool achievement. Sociology of Education, 61(2), 78-94.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1989). Equity as access to learning: Curricular and instructionaltreatment differences. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(2), 129-149.

Natriello, G., Pallas, A. M., & Alexander, K. (1989). On the right track? Curriculum andacademic achievement. Sociology of Education, 62(2), 109-118.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Page, R. N. (1991). Lower track classrooms: A circular and cultural perspective. New York:Teachers College Press.

Page, R. N., & Valli, L. (Eds.). (1990). Curriculum differentiation: Interpretive studies in U.S.secondary schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted andtalented learner. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curriculum of high school tracking. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Sharan, S. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory and Research. New York: Praeger.

Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (Eds.). (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies onretention. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidencesynthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.

Sorensen, A. B. (1987). The organizational differentiation of students in schools as an opportunitystructure. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.),. The social organization of schools (pp. 103-129). NewYork: Plenum Press.

Sorensen, A. B., & Hallinan, M. T. (1986). Effects of ability grouping on growth in academicachievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 519-542.

Wheelo6k, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How "untracking" can save America's schools. NewYork: The New Press.

C. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the teenageyears. New York: Basic Books.

Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Elkind, D. (1989). Developmentally appropriate practice: Philosophical and practical implications.Phi Delta Kappan, 71(2), 30-33.

Farrell, E. (1990). Hanging in and dropping out: Voices of at-risk high school students. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Newmann, F. M. (1981). Reducing student alienation in high schools: Implications of theory.Harvard Educational Review, 51(4), 546-564.

12

Newmann, F. M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational Leadership,46(5), 34-36.

Newmann, F. M. (Ed.). (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondaryschools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literatureachievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261-290.


Sedlak, M. W., Wheeler, C. W., Pullin, D. C., & Cusick, P. A. (1986). Selling students short:Classroom bargains and academic reform in the American high school. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Stipek, D. (1986). Children's motivation to learn. In T. M. Tomlinson & H. J. Walberg (Eds.),Academic work and educational excellence (pp. 197-221). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

D. ASSESSMENT REFORM

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., & Mullis, I. V. S. (1989). Understanding direct writingassessments. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Archbald, D., & Newmann, F. M. (1988). Beyond standardized testing: Assessing authenticacademic achievement in the secondary school. Reston, VA: National Association ofSecondary School Principals.

Berlak, H., Newmann, F. M., Adams, E., Archbald, D. A., Burgess, T., Raven, J., & Romberg, T.(1992). Toward a new science of educational testing and assessment. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York.

Brandt, R. (Ed.). (1992). Readings from Educational Leadership: Performance assessment.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brandt, R. (Ed.). (1992). Using performance assessment. Educational Leadership, 49(8). [Entireissue].

Burke, K. (Ed.). (1992). Authentic Assessment: A collection. Palatine, IL: IRI/SkylightPublishing, Inc.

Champagne, A. B., Lovitts, B. E., & Calinger, B. J. (1990). Assessment in the service ofinstruction. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

13

10

Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternativeassessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Klum, G. (1990). Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science.

Lesh, R., & Lamon, S. J. (Eds.). (1992). Assessment of authentic performance in schoolmathematics. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment:expectations and validation criteria. Education Researcher, 20(7), 15-21.

Mathematical Sciences Education Board. (1993). Measuring up: Prototypes for mathematicalassessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Mitchell, R. (1992). Testing for learning: How new approaches to evaluation can improveAmerican schools. New York: Free Press.

National Commission on Testing and Public Policy. (1990). From gatekeeper to gateway:Transforming testing in America. Chestnut Hill, MA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards forschool mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teachingmathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future ofmathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Perrone, V. (1991). Expanding student assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.

Raizen, S. A., Baron, J. B., Champagne, A. B., Haertel, E., Mullis, I. V. S., & Oakes, J. (1989).Assessment in Elementary School Science Education. Washington, DC: The NationalCenter for Improving Science Education [A Partnership between The NETWORK,Inc., Andover, MA and The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs,CO].

Raizen, S. A., Baron, J. B., Champagne, A. B., Haertel, E., Mullis, I. V. S., & Oakes, J. (1990).Assessment in Science Education: The Middle Years. National Center for Improving ScienceEducation [A Partnership between The NETWORK, Inc., Andover, MA and The BiologicalSciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs, CO].

Romberg, T. A. (Ed.). (1992). Mathematics assessment and evaluation: Imperatives formathematics educators. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

14

Stiggins, R. J., & Conklin, N. F. (1992). In teachers' hands: Investigating the practices ofclassroom assessment. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Wiggins, G. (1989). The futility of trying to teach everything of importance. EducationalLeadership, 47(3), 44-59.

Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi DeltaKappan, 70(9), 703-714.

Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 41-47.

Wiggins, G. (1991). Standards, not standardization: Evoking quality student work. EducationalLeadership, 48(5), 18-25.

Wiggins, G. (1992). Creating tests worth taking. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 26-33.

Wolf, D. P., & Pistone, N. (1991). Taking full measure: Rethinking assessment through the arts.New York: The College Board.

N.,

15

III. PROFESSIONAL LIFE OF THE TEACHERS

A. ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS' WORK LIFE

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and studentachievement. New York: Longman.

Bidwell, C. E., & Quiroz, P. A. (1991). Organizational control in the high school workplace: Atheoretical argument. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1(3), 211-229.

Bird, T., & Little, J. W. (1986). How schools organize the teaching occupation. Elementary SchoolJournal, 86(4), 493-511.

Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching for understanding:Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fuller, B., & Izu, J. A. (1986). Explaining school cohesion: What shapes the organizational beliefsof teachers? American Journal of Education, 94(4), 501-535.

Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: BasicBooks.

Lee, V. E., Pedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schoolson teacher satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64(3), 190-208.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of co!legiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of schoolsuccess. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.

Little, J. W. (1990). Conditions of professional development in secondary schools. In M. W.McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, & N. Bascia (Eds.), --The contexts of teaching in secondaryschools (pp. 187-223). New York: Teachers'College Press.

Little, J. W., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1992): Cultures and contexts of teaching. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Livingston, C. (1992). Teachers as leaders: Evolving roles. Washington. DC: National EducationAssociation.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Louis, K. S. (1990). Social and community values and the quality of teacher work life. In M.McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert & N. Bascia (Eds.), The context of teachers' work in secondaryschools (pp. 17-39). New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaughlin, M., Talbert, J. E., & Bascia, N. (Eds.). (1990). The context of teachers' wort insecondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

16

Reyes, P. (Ed.). (1990). Teachers and their workplace: Commitment, performance andproductivity. San Francisco: Sage.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New York:Teachers College Press.

Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design ofschools. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education: Vol. 16 (pp. 353-389).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Shedd, J. B., & Bacharach, S. B. (1991). Tangled hierarchies: Teachers as professionals and themanagement of schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: Russell & Russell.

Wasley, P. A. (1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric of reform and the realities of practice.New York: Teachers College Press.

B. PROPOSALS FOR ENHANCING THE TEACHING PROFESSION

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21stcentury. New York: Author.

Corcoran, T. B., Walker, L. J., & White, J. L. (1988). Working in urban schools. Washington,DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Firestone, W. A., & Bader, B. D. (1992). Redesigning teaching: Professionalism or bureaucracy?Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Holmes Group, The. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of The Holmes Group. East Lansing,MI: Author.

Levin, H. M. (1991). Building school capacity for effective teacher empowerment: Applications toelementary schools with at-risk students. Rutgers, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research inEducation.

Levine, M. (Ed.). (1992). Professional practice schools: Linking teacher education and schoolreform. New York: Teachers College Press.

17

2'

Lichtenstein, G., McLaughlin, M., Knudsen, J. (1991). Teacher empowerment and professionalknowledge. Rutgers, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1988). Building a professional culture in schools. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Lieberman, A., & Rehage, K. J. (Eds.). (1992). The changing contexts of teaching: Ninety-firstyearbook of The National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Schdn, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:Basic Books.

Sykes, G. (1983). Public policy and the problem of teacher quality: The need for screens andmagnets. In L. S. Shulman, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 97-125). New York: Longman.

Sykes, G. (1990). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools. In R. F. Elmore & Associates,Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform (pp. 59-96). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Watts, G. D., & Castle, S. (1992). Electronic networking and the construction of professionalknowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 684-689.

18

23

IV. SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

A. POLICY ISSUES AND NEW STRUCTURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Carnoy, M., & MacDonell, J. (1990). School district restructuring in Santa Fe, New Mexico.Educational Policy, 4(1), 49-64.

Clune, W. H., & Witte, J. F. (Eds.). (1990). Choice and control in American education: Vol. 1.The theory of choice and control in American education. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Clune, W. H., & Witte, J. F. (Eds.). (1990). Choice and cont: of in American education: Vol. 2.The practice of choice, decentralization and school restructuring. Philadelphia: FalmerPress.

Clune, W. H. (1990). Three views of curriculum policy in the school context: The school as policymediator, policy critic, and policy constrictor. In M. W. McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, & N.Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools (pp. 256-270). New York:Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in big city schools. NewYork: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, and National Center for RestructuringEducation, Schools and Teaching.

Firestone, W. A. (1989, Summer). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151-164.

Firestone, W. A., Fuhrman, S. H., & Kirst, M. W. (1991). State educational reform since 1983:Appraisal and the future. Educational Policy, 5(3), 233-250.

Fuhrman, S., Clune, W. H., & Elmore, R. F. (1988). Research on educational reform: Lessons onthe implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90(2), 237-257.

Holmes, M., & Wynne, E. A. (1989). Making the school an effective community: Belief, practiceand theory in school administration. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

James, T., & Levin, H. M. (1988). Comparing public and private schools: Vol. I. Institutions andorganizations. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Kirst, M. W. (1990). Accountability: Implications for state and local policy makers. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Council on Educational Standards and Testing. (1992). Raising standards for Americaneducation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.


19

Shavelson, R. J., McDonnell, L. M., & Oakes, J. (Eds.). (1989). Indicators for monitoringmathematics and science: A sourcebook. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

Watts, G. D., & McClure, R. M. (1990). Expanding the contract to revolutionize school renewal.Educational Leadership, 71(10), 765-774.

B. SCHOOL SITE MANAGEMENT

Brown, D. J. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management. New York: Falmer Press.

Clune, W. H., & White, P. A. (1988). School-based management: Institutional variation,implementation, and issues for further research (CPRE Research Report Series RR-008).New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Policy Research in Education.

Cohen, D. K. (1990). Governance and instruction: The promise of decentralization and choice. InW. H. Clune and J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education:Vol. 1. The theory of choice and control in American education (pp. 337-386).Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Conley, S. (1991). Review of research on teacher participation in school decision making. In G.Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education: Vol. 17 (pp. 225-265). Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.

Conley, S., & Bacharach, S. (1990). From school-site management to participatory school-sitemanagement. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(7), 539-44.

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Pushing school reform to a new edge: The seven ironies of schoolempowerment. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(1), 68-75.

Hill, P., & Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and accountability in public education. SantaMonica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

Lane, J. J., & Epps, E. G. (Eds.). (1992). Restructuring the schools: Problems and prospects.Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Lieberman, A., Darling-Hammond, L., & Zuckerman, D. Early lessons in restructuring schools.New York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching.

Lieberman, A., Zuckerman, D., Wilkie, A., Smith, E., Barinas, N., & Hergert, L. (1991). Earlylessons in restructuring schools: Case studies of schools of tomorrow... today. New York:National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, Columbia University.

Malen, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (1988). Professional patron influence on site-based governancecouncils: A confronting case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4),251-270.

20

Ma len, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management?A case study of the literature -- A call for research. In W. Clune & J. Witte (Eds.),Choice and control in American education: Vol. 2. The practice of choice,decentralization and school restructuring (pp. 289-342). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Marburger, C. L. (1985). One school at a time: School based management, a process for change.Columbia, MD: The National Committee for Citizens in Education.

C. LEADERSHIP

Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional management roleof the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64.

Deal, T. E. (1990). Reframing reform. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 6-12.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The principal's role in shaping school culture.Washington, DC: U.S. Gov,.trnment Printing Office.

Firestone, W. A., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improveinstruction: The principal's contribution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 7-30.

Greenfield, W. (Ed.). (1987). Instructional leadership: Concepts, issues, and controversies.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN:Interaction Book Co.

Manasse, A. L. (1985). Improving conditions for principal effectiveness: Policy implications ofresearch. The Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 138-162.

Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In P. W. Thurston & L. S. Lotto (Eds.),Advances in educational administration.' Vol. 1, Part B. Changing perspectives on the school(pp. 163-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

National LEADership Network; Study Group on Restructuring Schools. (1991). Developing leadersfor restructuring schools: New habits of mind and heart. (GPO No. 065-000-004445)Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Sergiovanni, T. (1987). The theoretical basis for cultural leadership. In L. T. Shieve & M. B.Schoenheit (Eds.), Leadership: Examining the elusive (pp. 116-129). Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

21

D. SCHOOL CLIMATE AND CULTURE

Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review ofEducational Research, 52(3), 368-420.

Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual influences, andconsequences for students and teachers. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison,National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.

Cusick, P. A. (1973). Inside high school: The student's world. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The principal's role in shaping school culture.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Firestone, W. A., & Rosenblum, S. (1988). Building commitment in urban high schools.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 285-299.

Fullan, M. G. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 85(3), 391-421.

Hill, P. T., Foster, G. E., & Gendler, T. (1990). High schools with character. Santa Monica: TheRAND Corporation.

Howard, E. R., & Keefe, J. W. (1991). The CASE -IMS school improvement process. Reston, VA:National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. New York:Basic Books.

Lipsitz, J. (1984). Successful schools for young adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: TransactionBooks.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J., with Kahne, J., & Powell, J. (1990). Constructing apersonalized school environment. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(3), 230-235.

McNeil, L. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York:Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondaryschools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Metz, M. H. (1986). Different by design: The context and character of three magnet schools. NewYork: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

22

2 P°"1

Newmann, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational factors affecting schoolsense of efficacy, community, and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62(4), 221-238.


Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change (2nd ed.). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Schein, E. N. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

2 c'1,23

V. COLLABORATION BETWEEN AND SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY

A. POLICY ISSUES

Bastian, A., Fruchter, N., Gittell, M., Greer, C., & Haskins, K. (1986). Choosing equality: Thecase for democratic schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1988). New futures: Plans for assisting at-risk youth in fivecities. Washington, DC: Author.

Committee for Economic Development. (1985). Investing in our children. Washington, DC:Author.

Committee for Economic Development. (1987). Children in need: Investment strategies for theeducationally disadvantaged. New York: Author.

Kirst, M. W. (1990). Accountability: Implications for state and local policy makers. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Melaville, A. I., with Blank, M. J. (1991). What it takes: Structuring interagency partnerships toconnect children and families with comprehensive services. Washington, DC: Education andHuman Services Consortium.

Newmann, F. M., & Oliver, D. W. (1967). Education and community. Harvard EducationalReview, 37(1), 61-106.

Seeley, D. S. (1985). Education through partnership. Washington, DC: American EnterpriseInstitute for Public Policy Research.


Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989). Reducingthe risk: Schools as communities of support. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

B. COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SERVICES FOR CHILDREN

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,94 Supplement, S95-S120.

Gardner, S. (1990). Failure by fragmentation. Equity and Choice, 6(2), 4-12.

Hodgkinson, H. (1991). Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(1), 9-16.

24

2 (s

Joe, T., & Nelson, D. (1989). New futures for America's children. In F. Macchiarola & A.Gartner (Eds.), Caring for America's children (pp. 214-223). New York: The Academy ofPolitical Science.

Lewis, A. C. (1986). Partnerships: Connecting school and community. Arlington, VA: AmericanAssociation of School Administrators.

Schorr, L. B. (1989). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York:Doubleday.

W. T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship. (1988). The forgotten half:Pathways to success for America's youth and young families. Washington, DC: Author.

C. BUSINESS AND SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS

Hamilton, S. F. (1990). Apprenticeship for adulthood: Preparing youth for the future. New York:Free Press.

Levine, M., & Trachtman, R. (1988). American business and the public school: Case studies ofcorporate involvement in public education. New York: Committee for EconomicDevelopment.

National Alliance of Business. (1989). A blueprint for business on restructuring education.Washington, DC: Author.

National Center on Education and the Economy. (1990). America's choice: High skills or lowwages. [The report of the Commission on Skills of the American Workforce.] Rochester,NY: Author.

D. PARENT INVOLVEMENT

Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high schoolcompletion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309-320.

Davies, D. (1990). Shall we wait for the revolution? A few lessons from the Schools Reaching OutProject. Equity and Choice, 6(3), 68-73.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., & Leiderman, P. H. (1987). The relation of parenting style toadolescent school performance. Child Development, 58(5), 1244-1257.

Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parentinvolvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. X. Kaufmann & F. Lasel (Eds.), Social intervention:Potential and constraints (pp. 121-136). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

25

o 1.1t.) ..

Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofEducational Research (6th ed.) (pp. 1139-1151). New York: Macmillan.

Keith, T. Z., Reimers, T. M., Fehrmann, P. G., Pottebaum, S. M., & Aubey, L. W. (1986).Parental involvement, homework, and TV time: Direct and indirect effects on high school

achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(5), 373-380.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementaryeducation. New York: Falmer Press.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Shields, P. M. (1987). Involving low income parents in the schools: Arole for policy? Phi Delta Kappan, 69(2), 156-160.

Moles, 0. C. (1982). Synthesis of recent research on parent participation in children's education.Educational Leadership, 40(2), 44-47.

26

31

AUTHOR INDEX

A.Adams, E., 13Adler, M. J., 8Alexander, K., 11Alkin, M. C., 26American Association for the Advancement of Science, 8Anderson, C. S., 22Applebee, A. N., 8, 9, 13Archbald, D. A., 13Aschbacher, P. R., 14Ascher, C., 19Ashton, P. T., 16Astone, N. M., 25Aubey, L. W., 26

B.Bacharach, S. B., 5, 17, 20Bader, B. D., 5, 17Bahmueller, C. F., 10Baker, E. L., 14Barinas, N., 20Baron, J. B., 14Barr, R., 3Barth, R. S., 5Bascia, N., 16, 19Bastian, A., 24Berends, M., 11Bejarano, Y., 10Berlak, H., 13Berman, P., 5Bidwell, C. E., 3; 16Bird, T., 16Blank, M. J., 24Bliss, J. R., 3Blythe, T., 1Bonan, J., 20Bonstingl, J. J., 1Bossert, S. T., 21Brandt, R. S., 1, 3, 9, 11, 13Brophy, J., 11Brown, D. J., 20Bryk, A. S., 3, 11, 22Buchwald, C. E., 8Burgess, T., l'Burke, K., 13Bybee, R. W., 8

C.California Department of Education, 8California State Department of Education, 9Ca linger, B. J., 13Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 17Carnoy, M., 19Castle, S., 18Cazden, C., 17Center for the Study of Social Policy, 24Champagne, A. B., 13, 14Chubb, J. E., 1Clune, W. H., 3, 19, 20, 21Cohen, D. K., 4, 10, 13, 16, 20, 23Cohen, M., 5Coleman, J. S., 3, 24Corner, J., 1Committee for Economic Development, 24Conklin, N. F., 15Conley, D., 5Conley, S., 20Corcoran, T. B., 3, 17Council of Chief State School Officers, 1Crandall, D. P., 5Crissman, S., 8Csikszentmihalyi, M., 12Cuban, L., 5Curriculum Task Force of the National

Commission on Social Studies in the Schools, 9Cusick, P. A., 3, 13, 22

D.Darling-Hammond, L., 19, 20David, J. L., 5Davies, D., 25Deal, T. E., 21, 22Dedrick, R. F., 16Di Pardo, A., 11Dornbusch, S. M., 25Doyle, D. P., 2Dreeben, R., 3Driscoll, M. E., 22Dunbar, S. B., 14Dwyer, D. C., 21

E.Eckert, P., 12Eiseman, J. W., 5

28

3 cJ

Elkind, D., 12Elmore, R. F., 5, 19Elmore, R. F., & Associates, 1, 18Epps, E. G., 20Epstein, J. L., 4, 25, 26

F.Farrar, E., 4, 13, 23Farrell, E., 12Fehrmann, P. G., 25Fernandez, R. R., 24Fine, M., 22Finn, C. E., Jr., 1, 6Firestone, W. A., 3, 5, 17, 19, 21, 22Fisher, A., 4Fiske, E. B., 5Ford Foundation, 5Foster, G. E., 22Freedman, S., 11Freedman, S. G., 4Fruchter, N., 24Fuhrman, S. H., 1, 5, 6, 19Fullan, M. G., 5, 22Fuller, B., 16

G.Gamoran, A., 10, 11, 13Gardner, H., 1, 9Gardner, S., 24Gartner, A., 25Gendler, T., 22Gifford, B., 13Gittell, M., 24Glickman, C. D., 1, 6, 20Good, T. L., 11Good lad, J. I., 4, 17Grant, G., 20Greenfield, W., 21Greer, C., 24

H.Haertel, E., 14Hall, G., 6Hallinan, M. T., 12Hal linger, P., 6, 11Hamilton, S. F., 25Haskins, K., 24Heil, D. R., 8

3-:

Hergert, L., 20Herman, J. L., 14Hersey, P. W. 2Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., 10Hess, G. A., Jr., 6Hill, P. T., 20, 22Hirsch; E. D., Jr., 9Hodgkinson, H., 24Hoffer, T., 3Holmes Group, The, 17Holmes, M., 19Honetschalager, D., 5Hopfenberg, W. S., 1Hord, S. M., 6Howard, E. R., 22Huberman, A. M., 6Hughes, C. S., 9Hurrelmann, K., 25

I-J.Izu, J. A., 16Jackson, P. W., 10James, T., 19Jenkins, J. M., 2Joe, T., 25Johnson, D. W., 9, 21Johnson, R. T., 9, 21Johnson, S. M., 16Jones, B. F., 9

K.Kahne, J., 22Kaufmann, F. X., 25Kearns, D. T., 2Keefe, J. W., 2, 22Keith, T. Z., 26Kerckhoff, A. C., 11Kilgore, S. B., 11King, M. B., 9Kirp, D. L., 6Kirst, M. W., 19, 24Klum, G., 14Knudsen, J., 18Kozol, J., 4Kranz, J., 21Kuerbis, P. J., 8Kulik, J. A., 11Kussell, P., 10Kyle, R. M. J., 6

30

L.Ladwig, J. G., 9Lamon, S. J., 14Lane, J. J., 20Langer, J. A., 9, 13Lareau, A., 26Larson, R., 12Lasel, F., 25Lee, G. V., 21Lee, V. E., 11, 16Lesh, R., 14Lesko, N., 24Levin, H. M., 1, 17, 19Levine, M., 2, 17, 25Lewis, A. C., 2, 25Lichtenstein, G., 18Leiderman, P. H., 25Lieberman, A., 6, 18, 20Lightfoot, S. L., 22Linn, R. L., 14Lipsitz, J., 22Lipton, M., 2Little, J. W., 16Livingston, C., 16Lortie, D. C., 16Lotto, L. S., 21Louis, K. S., 5, 6, 16Lovitts, B. E., 13

M.Macchiarola, F., 25MacDonell, J., 19MacIver, D. J., 4Ma len, B., 5, 6, 20, 21Manasse, A. L., 21Marburger, C. L., 21Marshall, H. H., 2, 9March, J. G., 3Marzano, R. J., 9Massell, D., 5Mathematical Sciences Education Board, 9, 14Matsumoto, C., 8Maughan, B., 4McClure, R. M., 20McDonnell, L. M., 19McInerney, J. D., 8McLanahan, S. S., 25McLaughlin, M. W., 5, 16, 18, 19, 22, 26McNeil, L., 4, 22Meister, G., I

3C 31

Melaville, A. I., 24Metz, M. H., 4, 22Meyer, J. W., 4Miles, M. B., 6Miller, L., 2Mitchell, R., 14Moe, T. M., 1Moles, 0. C., 26Mortimore, P., 4Mullis, I. V. S., 13, 14Murnane, R. J., 9Murphy, J., 2, 6, 11, 21

N.National Alliance of Business, 25National Center for Improving Science Education, 10National Center on Education and the Economoy, 25National Commission on Excellence in Education, 2National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, 14National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 10, 14National Council on Educational Standards and Testing, 19National Governors' Association, 2, 6National LEADership Network; Study Group on Restructuring Schools, 21National Research Council, 14Natriello, G., 11Nelson, D., 25Newmann, F. M., 2, 6, 10, 12, 13, 23, 24Noddings, N., 10Norris, S. P., 10Nystrand, M., 10, 13

0.Oakes, J., 2, 10, 11, 14, 19O'Day, J., 6, 10Ogawa, R. T., 20, 21Oliver, D. W., 24O'Neil, J., 2Ouston, J., 4

P.Page, R. N., 10, 11Paideia Group, The, 8Pallas, A. M., 4, 11Perrone, V., 14Peterson, K. D., 21, 22Pistone, N., 15Popkewitz, T. S., 6Pottebaum, S. M., 26Powell, A. G., 4, 13, 23Powell, J., 22

32

Presseisen, B. Z., 9Pullin, D. C., 13Purkey, S., 5

Q-R.Quality Education for Minorities Project, 2Quigley, C. N., 10Quiroz, P. A., 16Raizen, S. A., 9, 14Rankin, S. C., 9Ratzki, A., 4Raven, J. 13

Raviv, S., 10Rebarber, T., 6Rehage, K. J., 18Reimers, T. M., 26Resnick, L. B., 2, 10Reyes, P., 17Richards, C. E., 3Ritter, P. L., 25Rogers, J., 1Rogers, K. B., 12Romberg, T. A., 13, 14Rosenbaum, J. E., 12Rosenberg, B., 3Rosenblum, S., 5, 22Rosenholtz, S. J., 17Rowan, B., 4, 17, 21Rutter, M., 4Rutter, R. A., 23, 24

S.Sarason, S. B., 6, 23Schein, E. N., 23Schlechty, P. C., 2Schoenheit, M. B., 21Schon, D., 18Schorr, L. B., 25Scott, W. R., 4Sedlak, M. W., 13Seeley, D. S., 2, 24Sergiovanni, T., 21Shanker, A., 3, 19, 24Sharan, S., 10, 12Sharan, Y., 10Shavelson, R. J., 20Shedd, J. B., 17Shepard, L. A., 12Shields, P. M., 26Shieve, L. T., 21

33

Shulman, L. S., 18Sirotnik, K., 17Sizer, T. R., 3, 4Slavin, R. E., 10, 12Smith, E., 20Smith, G. A, 24Smith, J. B., 16Smith, M. L., 12Smith, M. S., 6, 10, 23Soder, R., 17Sorensen, A. B., 12Stevenson, H. W., 4Stiggins, R. J., 15Stigler, J. W., 4Stipek, D., 13Suhor, C., 9Sykes, G., 18

T.Tabachnick, B. R., 6Talbert, J. E., 16, 19, 22Thum, Y. M., 3Thurston, P. W., 21Timar, T. B.. 6Tomlinson, T. M., 13Trachtman, R., 25

raiman, S., 5Tyack, D., 7

U-v-VV.Valli, L., 11Walberg, H., 10, 13Walker, L. J., 17Waller, W., 17Wasley, P. A., 17Watts, G. D., 18, 20Waxman, H., 10Webb, R. B., 16Wehlage, G. G., 6, 24Wheeler, C. W., 13Wheelock, A., 3, 12White, E. H., 6White, J. L., 17White, P. A., 5, 20Wiggins, G., 15Wilkie, A., 20Wilson, B. L., 3, 21Winters, L., 14

34

Wise, A. E., 7Wittrock, M. C., 11Witte, J. F., 3, 19, 20, 21Wolf, D. P., 15Wynne, E. A., 19W. T. Grant Foundation Commission

on Work, Family and Citizenship, 25

x-Y-Z.Zuckerman, D., 20

35

4'HST CgrAt AMU:.

Documents

ED 356 570 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION · that divides the literature into five areas. Section 1, "General References on School Restructuring," contains 89 references on proposals for